British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

[Matt]

I still think it's worth looking for denialist style response the BCA has made in a letters to the editor format. We may not show that they believe that the studies disproving chiropractic for athsma etc are actually true but we might at least be able to show dishonesty in a wider sense.

[bindeweede]

Somehow, I stumbled across this about Mr Justice Eady. No idea if it is interesting or what.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...s-privacy.html

[chaggle]

Somehow, I stumbled across this about Mr Justice Eady. No idea if it is interesting or what.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...s-privacy.html

This bit could be interesting

"He is very sensitive to criticism; in one recent case he was heavily criticised by the Law Lords when they overturned one of his rulings in a libel case involving the Wall Street Journal, and he was deeply hurt by that."

But on the other hand

"The fact that he has not been promoted just gives him even more power. His decisions are rarely successfully appealed, a fact which speaks for itself, and he has such seniority within the High Court that he will carry on shaping the law in a way that few other judges can."

[Blue Wode]

An update from Simon Singh, Sunday 17 May, 2009
(Via his e-newsletter – not yet available on his website http://www.simonsingh.net/ )

I apologise for the silence since last week’s bad news at the High Court, but at last I have been able to take stock of the situation and write a quick update.

It has been over a year since I wrote an article for the Guardian newspaper (19 April 200eight) about chiropractic, its effectiveness in relation to childhood conditions and its risks. The British Chiropractic Association then decided to sue me for libel and I have spent most of the last twelve months building a defence.

Prior to the full trial it was agreed that it would be helpful for the actual meaning of the article to be established in a preliminary hearing. On Thursday 7 May 2009 the preliminary hearing took place at the Royal Courts of Justice in front of Justice David Eady. It is not an understatement to say that his ruling was, from my point of view, disastrous and misguided.

The core of my article, and the aspect that I thought was mainly under scrutiny, suggested that chiropractors lacked evidence to support their treatment of several childhood conditions. I therefore called these treatments “bogus”.

The judge held that merely using the phrase “happily promotes bogus treatments” meant that I was stating, as a matter of fact, that the BCA was being consciously dishonest in promoting chiropractic for treating the children’s ailments in question, in that they were promoting treatments they knew were ineffective.

Although I maintain my position that such chiropractic treatment for childhood conditions lacks any significant scientific basis and that chiropractic in general carries risks, I do not and never have meant to imply that chiropractors are deliberately and dishonestly offering such treatments. My view is that, for example, they may not know the scientific evidence, they may not understand it or they may have a biased interpretation of the evidence – I don’t know. More generally, I share the commonly held view that alternative therapists who offer treatments unsupported by reasonable evidence are deluded rather than deliberately dishonest. I think that Justice Eady has failed to interpret the meaning of the article in the way that a reasonable reader would understand it.

The current ruling by Justice Eady means that I stand very, very little hope of a successful defence at trial, so going to trial is not a realistic option. My two reasonable options are to:

1. Settle now, which will cost in excess of £100,000 (the vast majority of these costs would be to cover the BCA’s legal bills, as opposed to damages).

2. Submit an appeal in relation to the meaning of my article, hoping for a more reasonable ruling on meaning and then fight the case on what the article really meant.

I have until May 28 to lodge an application to appeal. I am seriously thinking about this option and am discussing it with my lawyers. It would increase my legal costs and eat up more time, but on the other hand I think I deserve the chance to fight my case on a reasonable interpretation of my article.

Moreover, this case demonstrates the chilling effect that the libel laws can have journalism in general, and science journalism in particular. The events of last week impact far beyond the author of one article on the subject of chiropractic.

Last Thursday was a miserable day, but I like to think I am as resilient as a Tigger. I am certainly in good spirits. In particular, family, friends, readers and bloggers have all cheered me up.

Thanks also for your supportive messages. I will try to reply to emails, but please forgive me if I don’t. The best option is to post to the Facebook site (see below) – I do regularly read the wall and it frequently makes me smile. I should also point out that the enormous support that I have received from around the world has certainly made me more enthusiastic about lodging an appeal (if this turns out to be a practical option). Scientists, journalists, comedians, rationalists, skeptics, bloggers, politicians and those who care about free speech have all expressed their outrage at last week’s ruling.

The next event that will interest those following the case is a public meeting on Monday 18 May at 6.30pm at Penderel’s Oak Pub (283 High Holborn, WC1V 7HP). Speakers will include me, the amazing Nick Cohen, the fantastic Dave Gorman and the heroic Evan Harris MP.

If you cannot make it to the meeting, then please help by letting others know about the case, the ruling and the possibility of an appeal. If there is an appeal, then it would be great to launch it upon a strong tide of public support.

If you want to find out more about the case (or want to inform others) then below are some useful links. This includes mainstream media coverage in New Scientist, Nature and the Economist.

Thanks again to everyone who has been so supportive.

Simon (still smiling) Singh.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33457048634
For Simon Singh and Free Speech - Against the BCA Libel Claim
This seems to be the best place for keeping up with the latest news and developments. It contains links to various blogs and articles commenting on the case. Joining the group is a great way to show your support.

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/
Jack of Kent’s blog is well informed and written from an expert’s point of view. Recent update postings include:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/bca-v-singh-astonishingly-illiberal.html
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-should-simon-singh-do-next.html

Googling words such as SIMON SINGH, BCA, LIBEL will take you to lots of blogs and articles about the libel case. Google news is particularly helpful (search “SIMON SINGH”, and you can also then click on the blog option.
http://news.google.co.uk/news

Coverage
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227086.200-comment-dont-criticise-or-well-sue.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.479.html
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13643973

For another superb round-up, see here:
http://godknowswhat.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/simon-singh-case-response-roundup/

[DrS]

Thanks for this Blue Wode. It's good to see that Simon Singh still has a lot of fight in him. At this point, I'm pleased to see that he's considering an appeal on the finding of the preliminary hearing rather than simple settlement. As he says, this has impact far beyond just this particular case.

[Admin]

From Simon Singh's newsletter:

The judge held that merely using the phrase “happily promotes bogus treatments” meant that I was stating, as a matter of fact, that the BCA was being consciously dishonest in promoting chiropractic for treating the children’s ailments in question, in that they were promoting treatments they knew were ineffective.

As I see it the offending word might be "happily [promotes]" rather than "bogus [treatments]".

Stating that the BCA "promotes bogus treatments" might have been acceptable whereas stating that the BCA "happily promotes bogus treatments" left him open to the accusation of defamation: the word 'happily' adds a value judgement to an otherwise factual statement.

I don't know, but it might come down to the use of that simple adjective.

Anyway, I suspect the word 'happily' might have been a lot more important than the word 'bogus' in the judge's decision.

[bindeweede]

Worth a try, I suppose................

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/ref...ellaws/#detail

[Trinoc]

Worth a try, I suppose................

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/ref...ellaws/#detail

I look forward to seeing how they word their "We are not going to do anything" response this time.

[Mojo]

I look forward to seeing how they word their "We are not going to do anything" response this time.

Something starting along the lines of "the Culture, Media and Sport Committee has recently conducted an inquiry into press standards, privacy and libel...", most likely.

[Blue Wode]

First online posting giving a good summary of tonight's meeting in the pub:

Simon Singh hopes to appeal chiropracty libel ruling, but can't confirm yet
http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2009/...iropracty.html

[Trinoc]

An excellent meeting for sure, and I think we established (as much as we can without a court ruling) that while the judge ruled in the idiotic idea that the case is about the honesty of the BCA's intentions, he also ruled out the scientific evidence as part of the case. This means, in essence, that the scientific evidence is back in the melting pot, regardless of whether Simon proceeds with the legal stuff or not. Jack of Kent said that the BCA had been challenged to provide the scientific evidence to support their claims, and they should be kept under pressure to do this whatever the outcome of the honesty issue in the courts.

The wider issue brought up by Nick Cohen is the shambolic state of our libel laws that allows, for example, a wanted criminal on the run from one country residing in another country (neither country being the UK) can sue a magazine, also not in the UK, for defamation for reporting the crimes for which that person has already confessed. This can not go on, and I hope every MP in the country gets showered with requests to do something about it.

[Croydon Bob]

An excellent meeting for sure,

It felt like the most important SitP meeting ever. It was great just to have been there. There was lots of support for Simon however he chooses to proceed.

[Blue Wode]

A message from lecanardnoir:

A Carnival of Bogus* Chiropractic

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

One of the side effects of the BCA vs Chiropractic libel case is that there are a growing number of people who now realise that Chiropractic is bogus*. Even though Simon Singh may well have suffered a set back from a judge who according to the law can define words as he sees fit, we are now seeing increasing exposure to the bogus* practices of the chiropractic trade.

One way to show the ridiculousness of the legal decision and of chiropractic would be to have a little blog carnival on the bogus* nature of chiropractic claims and practices, and so I suggest that sceptical bloggers and writers help out by doing the following…

1. Find a chiropractic claim from an association or practitioner and examine the evidence for it critically. Look at Cochrane reviews (if they exist), papers and the basic science behind the claims. Write to the claimant involved and ask them for their evidence for their claims.

2. If the evidence for effectiveness is lacking, call it a bogus* treatment.

3. Let me know what you have written and I will do a round up in a few weeks. Email me or twitter me @lecanardnoir.

4. Spread the word. Twitter like crazy.

I am on hols at the mo, so can I suggest all entries are emailed to me (see my ‘about’ pages) so that the carnival will appear y June 5th.

I think with not much effort we could turn the chiropractic google space into a web of critical articles. That would be a small step in the right direction.

* deliberate deception not implied.

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009...ropractic.html

[polomint38]

One of the side effects of the BCA vs Chiropractic libel case is that there are a growing number of people who now realise that Chiropractic is bogus*

This error already pointed out by Jack on quackometer.

[Blue Wode]

Video of Simon Singh meeting in Penderels Oak pub last night (9.25mins):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc77Y-XBlj0